Gun control: Watch out for that first step

By MIKE TOWERJust My Opinion

Published: Sunday, December 8, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, December 6, 2013 at 3:58 p.m.

One of the ideas we hear for supporting gun control concerns the word “militia” being used in the Second Amendment. Anti-gun advocates claim this word clearly shows the only constitutionally approved ownership of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment must be connected to the owner serving in a state militia — period.

In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008 and 2010, affirmed that an individual’s right to own firearms cannot be constrained by either state or federal laws, or by requiring membership in a militia. So this particular basis for supporting gun ownership restrictions is simply opinion and is a moot point that has no basis in law.

Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn’t matter what any of us thinks as an individual, or if we do or don’t agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey.

The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefore, if individuals or groups don’t agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an amendment.

Many of our Founders’ historical writings make it clear that they supported the Second Amendment primarily to ensure that our future citizens would be able to protect themselves and our nation from a rogue federal government. A global history of atrocities by evil dictators since our Constitution was written has proven how wise they were, and it’s why we must never allow any group, no matter how well-intentioned, to ever weaken in any way the legal rights of a law-abiding American citizen to own firearms.

America has less risk than many other nations of an evil leader being tempted to enslave our people, but that’s primarily because of the high level of firearms ownership by our citizens. Any evil despot wannabe would know America currently has around 80 million citizens who own nearly 300 million firearms. Such a wannabe would also know the chances of winning a guerrilla war against this huge number of highly motivated and well-armed defenders of liberty without destroying the entire nation would be quite small.

In the past 100 years or so, tens of millions of innocent humans have been tragically murdered by their own evil leaders in places such as China, Russia, Germany and Cambodia, among others. This can only be guaranteed to be prevented here if we doggedly resist all attempts to weaken in any way honest citizens’ right to own firearms.

The following statistics provide a logical reason to oppose any ban on honest citizens’ right to own semi-automatic rifles, which gun control advocates often incorrectly label “military assault weapons.”

Begin by examining the FBI U.S. Crimes website for 2011. You will find of the 12,664 homicides by all causes committed in 2011 (last year available), only 323 were committed by long rifles of any kind. Knives were used nearly 1,700 times, hands/fists/feet more than 700 times, and hammers/clubs 500 times.

Yet, gun control advocates remain focused on semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines as their main target. Why? Given the above statistics, how does that make any sense? If these advocates were successful in removing semi-automatic rifles, the reduction in homicides would be almost nonexistent. Do you think they don’t understand these facts?

The only possible reason for advocating such a first step is because it is just that — a first step toward eventually removing the Second Amendment rights of all honest, law-abiding American adults to own any firearms.

Additional evidence to support overall gun ownership freedom includes a recent report from the government’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, which stated that between 1993 and 2011 America had a nearly 50 percent reduction in gun homicides. Have criminals and the insane simply become kinder and gentler? Or is it possible that broader gun ownership by honest citizens is a major factor?

I actually wish most honest, law-abiding adult Americans owned and were trained to use firearms in order to protect their families and their fellow citizens’ freedom.

Frankly, I can’t understand reasonable people not rejecting the focus on weapons in the gun violence arguments, and instead acknowledging that criminals and mentally disturbed people are the real killers. Let’s focus our energy on improving identification, diagnosis and treatment for the mentally ill. Let’s create and enforce more severe penalties for gun use by criminals. Too much evidence proves gun ownership by honest citizens is simply not the real cause of firearm tragedies.

Finally, we ought to consider that the highest incidents of homicide by guns in America are in the places that currently have the strictest gun control laws. Chicago is a perfect example.

<p>One of the ideas we hear for supporting gun control concerns the word “militia” being used in the Second Amendment. Anti-gun advocates claim this word clearly shows the only constitutionally approved ownership of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment must be connected to the owner serving in a state militia — period.</p><p>In fact, the Supreme Court, as recently as 2008 and 2010, affirmed that an individual's right to own firearms cannot be constrained by either state or federal laws, or by requiring membership in a militia. So this particular basis for supporting gun ownership restrictions is simply opinion and is a moot point that has no basis in law.</p><p>Remember, we live in a land governed by our Constitution, and only our Supreme Court has the final say on exactly what the individual parts of the Constitution mean. It doesn't matter what any of us thinks as an individual, or if we do or don't agree with a court ruling. Any law, as interpreted by this highest court in the land, is a law we must all obey.</p><p>The only way the Constitution can be legally altered is via amendment. Therefore, if individuals or groups don't agree with any segment of the Constitution, they should either accept it or try to change it via an amendment.</p><p>Many of our Founders' historical writings make it clear that they supported the Second Amendment primarily to ensure that our future citizens would be able to protect themselves and our nation from a rogue federal government. A global history of atrocities by evil dictators since our Constitution was written has proven how wise they were, and it's why we must never allow any group, no matter how well-intentioned, to ever weaken in any way the legal rights of a law-abiding American citizen to own firearms.</p><p>America has less risk than many other nations of an evil leader being tempted to enslave our people, but that's primarily because of the high level of firearms ownership by our citizens. Any evil despot wannabe would know America currently has around 80 million citizens who own nearly 300 million firearms. Such a wannabe would also know the chances of winning a guerrilla war against this huge number of highly motivated and well-armed defenders of liberty without destroying the entire nation would be quite small.</p><p>In the past 100 years or so, tens of millions of innocent humans have been tragically murdered by their own evil leaders in places such as China, Russia, Germany and Cambodia, among others. This can only be guaranteed to be prevented here if we doggedly resist all attempts to weaken in any way honest citizens' right to own firearms.</p><p>The following statistics provide a logical reason to oppose any ban on honest citizens' right to own semi-automatic rifles, which gun control advocates often incorrectly label “military assault weapons.”</p><p>Begin by examining the FBI U.S. Crimes website for 2011. You will find of the 12,664 homicides by all causes committed in 2011 (last year available), only 323 were committed by long rifles of any kind. Knives were used nearly 1,700 times, hands/fists/feet more than 700 times, and hammers/clubs 500 times.</p><p>Yet, gun control advocates remain focused on semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines as their main target. Why? Given the above statistics, how does that make any sense? If these advocates were successful in removing semi-automatic rifles, the reduction in homicides would be almost nonexistent. Do you think they don't understand these facts?</p><p>The only possible reason for advocating such a first step is because it is just that — a first step toward eventually removing the Second Amendment rights of all honest, law-abiding American adults to own any firearms.</p><p>Additional evidence to support overall gun ownership freedom includes a recent report from the government's Bureau of Justice Statistics, which stated that between 1993 and 2011 America had a nearly 50 percent reduction in gun homicides. Have criminals and the insane simply become kinder and gentler? Or is it possible that broader gun ownership by honest citizens is a major factor?</p><p>I actually wish most honest, law-abiding adult Americans owned and were trained to use firearms in order to protect their families and their fellow citizens' freedom.</p><p>Frankly, I can't understand reasonable people not rejecting the focus on weapons in the gun violence arguments, and instead acknowledging that criminals and mentally disturbed people are the real killers. Let's focus our energy on improving identification, diagnosis and treatment for the mentally ill. Let's create and enforce more severe penalties for gun use by criminals. Too much evidence proves gun ownership by honest citizens is simply not the real cause of firearm tragedies.</p><p>Finally, we ought to consider that the highest incidents of homicide by guns in America are in the places that currently have the strictest gun control laws. Chicago is a perfect example.</p><p>These are my opinions. What do you think?</p><p><i>Mike Tower can be reached at miketower@bellsouth.net.</p>